Also, the article was japanese...who knows if it really has anything to do with the sales of these models in western countries. If they are still making money on them here (I kind of doubt they are making all that much still, especially with the likes of the iPhone and Lumia 1020 on the market), they may still sell them here.

FWIW, the Americas and Europe each accounted for ~30% of fixed-lens cameras in 2013, so 'western countries' are buying the majority of P&S cameras (although the distribution of high end vs. low end could vary by geography).

So, is that 60% of a market that shrunk by 40% over the last three years, or a broader market? I mean, if the market is shrinking, and western countries were the bulk of the sales in that market, then that would seem to mean that the bulk of the shrink in market share came from us as well.

So even if we are the major buyers of "fixed-lens cameras" (that's pretty broad right there...it encompasses more than the sub $200 camera market), then I am not really surprised by the article or the claim that Canon is going to ease out of the ultra low end of that market. I know a LOT more people these days have the Lumia 1020 here in Colorado. I see them everywhere now (I have the Lumia 920, and the large lens on the back of everyone else' Lumia is always telling me I need to upgrade! ) Everyone else has an iPhone...I rarely ever see anyone taking pictures with a cheap P&S anymore...everyone does their photography with their phones (and there are of course the few nitwits who take photos with their giant iPads as well.)

I suspect that Canon is losing money on the low end cameras. Even if they sell a ton of them, losing or making no money in order to move them is not all that smart, and spending more money to develop, tool, stock, and advertise new models is a poor investment. Canon is seeing good sales of the super zoom P&S cameras, and they make a high profit, so I expect to see more emphasis on them. The SX50 has received very high user ratings.

Canon more so than any of the other compact camera makers seems to be taking more of a “if you can’t beat them, join them” approach towards smartphones at the moment. Whether that’s enough to keep the rest of their compact line alive remains to be seen.

What Canon’s new compact lineup looks like is this: waterproof cameras, cameras with huge focal length ranges, the N series I just described, and the very high end G1x and G## cameras.

Canon isn’t the first to make a withdrawal at the low end. Fujifilm, Olympus, and Panasonic have already made similar comments, and Casio recently has done the same. Pentax executives have been quoted as saying the company is just concentrating on waterproof and high-end compact cameras, which brings us back to Nikon, the lone hold-out in the model reduction campaign. As it is during the last decade Nikon has gone from being #5 in compacts to #1 in terms of unit volume and are the winners of a what may end up a Pyrrhic victory.

Last one out should close the door. But you have to get out first ;~).

Fixed lens cameras accounted for ~46% of the total revenue from digital cameras last year. In general, the cheaper models of a given product line outsell the high end models. Seems like a lot of ¥ to throw away.

When they say "leave the entry level point & shoot market", maybe they mean not develop any more new designs/models but continue to sell the existing ones ... which would mean they don't need to spend more money on R&D, designing teams etc ... in which case they may not be throwing away the ¥

Smartphones are integrated into the internets and social media. That's what killed P&S cameras. Quality means nothing in this segment.

True, I think convenience beat out quality here ... I shoot more with my smart phone than any other camera. of course none of them are for artistic reasons, I use my smartphone to take pictures of newspaper adverts, take photos of important documents (and use it as a scanned copy), restaurant menus, screen shots and whatnot. I suppose for those who are not "into" photography, a smartphone is far more better and convenient/useful than any high end camera or camcorder.

FF mirrorless body is about same size as P&S. It's time Mr. Canon, before it too late

don't see how this changes the equation. Mirrorless FF will be at least 1k more expensive than anyone in the entry level P&S category is looking to spend ($200 or so vs $1500-2500)...

Mirrorless doesn't get you to facebook. Mirrorless doesn't let you watch youtube. Mirrorless doesn't let you do video chat. Mirrorless doesn't give you a dataplan! Mirrorless does not give you angry birds, words with friends or candy crush saga, or any of the other apps like that.... Mirrorless won't get you to porn (unless you film it yourself)...

Those not buying entry level P&S cameras kind of want 1 device. Cell phone cameras for the most part are pretty much as good in most situations as a p&S - mind you, we're talking about very casual shooters here. Mirrorless is way more expensive, not as capable (for what that market wants). Mirrorless, especially FF mirrorless is gonna only appeal to a unique niche mix of pros, hobbyists and enthusiasts or those who travel a lot!

Either way, it makes sense, anything below slr's has to offer something compelling, and entry level P&S's are far from compelling!!!!

Instead of using R&D resources to develop 100ish diff. P&S, Canon now can use that R&D resources in decent mirrorless. FF mirrorless I hope.

FF mirrorless body is about same size as P&S. It's time Mr. Canon, before it too late

don't see how this changes the equation. Mirrorless FF will be at least 1k more expensive than anyone in the entry level P&S category is looking to spend ($200 or so vs $1500-2500)...

Mirrorless doesn't get you to facebook. Mirrorless doesn't let you watch youtube. Mirrorless doesn't let you do video chat. Mirrorless doesn't give you a dataplan! Mirrorless does not give you angry birds, words with friends or candy crush saga, or any of the other apps like that.... Mirrorless won't get you to porn (unless you film it yourself)...

Those not buying entry level P&S cameras kind of want 1 device. Cell phone cameras for the most part are pretty much as good in most situations as a p&S - mind you, we're talking about very casual shooters here. Mirrorless is way more expensive, not as capable (for what that market wants). Mirrorless, especially FF mirrorless is gonna only appeal to a unique niche mix of pros, hobbyists and enthusiasts or those who travel a lot!

Either way, it makes sense, anything below slr's has to offer something compelling, and entry level P&S's are far from compelling!!!!

Instead of using R&D resources to develop 100ish diff. P&S, Canon now can use that R&D resources in decent mirrorless. FF mirrorless I hope.

I didn't buy A7r due to DR crap. I bought it for few reasons - compact and FF IQ(higher ISO). I wish Canon would release something like this soon so we don't have to discuss this topic ever again

I still don't get how FF mirrorless changes this equation man. Like I said "Mirrorless FF will be at least 1k more expensive than anyone in the entry level P&S category is looking to spend ($200 or so vs $1500-2500)." If your looking to spend $200 on a camera (which is what we're talking about here, entry level stuff) then how is FF mirrorless R&D going to help? This market segment isn't gonna buy anything over $1000 - save the select few who want to take it to the next level.

To put it on another level - even mirrorless APS-C doesn't fill the current entry level niche. They could push out a mirrorless rebel for instance, the $600-800 with lens price tag won't be appealing. The are people that are ditching cameras with better IQ for cell phones...

FF mirrorless body is about same size as P&S. It's time Mr. Canon, before it too late

don't see how this changes the equation. Mirrorless FF will be at least 1k more expensive than anyone in the entry level P&S category is looking to spend ($200 or so vs $1500-2500)...

Mirrorless doesn't get you to facebook. Mirrorless doesn't let you watch youtube. Mirrorless doesn't let you do video chat. Mirrorless doesn't give you a dataplan! Mirrorless does not give you angry birds, words with friends or candy crush saga, or any of the other apps like that.... Mirrorless won't get you to porn (unless you film it yourself)...

Those not buying entry level P&S cameras kind of want 1 device. Cell phone cameras for the most part are pretty much as good in most situations as a p&S - mind you, we're talking about very casual shooters here. Mirrorless is way more expensive, not as capable (for what that market wants). Mirrorless, especially FF mirrorless is gonna only appeal to a unique niche mix of pros, hobbyists and enthusiasts or those who travel a lot!

Either way, it makes sense, anything below slr's has to offer something compelling, and entry level P&S's are far from compelling!!!!

Instead of using R&D resources to develop 100ish diff. P&S, Canon now can use that R&D resources in decent mirrorless. FF mirrorless I hope.

Smartphones are integrated into the internets and social media. That's what killed P&S cameras. Quality means nothing in this segment.

True, I think convenience beat out quality here ... I shoot more with my smart phone than any other camera. of course none of them are for artistic reasons, I use my smartphone to take pictures of newspaper adverts, take photos of important documents (and use it as a scanned copy), restaurant menus, screen shots and whatnot. I suppose for those who are not "into" photography, a smartphone is far more better and convenient/useful than any high end camera or camcorder.

I think its not just convenience...its the whole "the camera in the hand" argument. I mean, it's convenient having a camera on your phone...but the big issue is that, everyone has their phone. It's ALWAYS on their person. No matter how good a dedicated camera device may be, the only camera that really matters is the one you have on your person, the one you can put in your hand at a moment's notice. There is really no competing with a universal device that is always on and always in hand. Phone camera controls are often very inconvenient. Even Lumia's new Nokia Camera software, while better, is still not convenient. It's tedious. But it's the camera I have in hand all the time.

Smartphones are integrated into the internets and social media. That's what killed P&S cameras. Quality means nothing in this segment.

True, I think convenience beat out quality here ... I shoot more with my smart phone than any other camera. of course none of them are for artistic reasons, I use my smartphone to take pictures of newspaper adverts, take photos of important documents (and use it as a scanned copy), restaurant menus, screen shots and whatnot. I suppose for those who are not "into" photography, a smartphone is far more better and convenient/useful than any high end camera or camcorder.

I think its not just convenience...its the whole "the camera in the hand" argument. I mean, it's convenient having a camera on your phone...but the big issue is that, everyone has their phone. It's ALWAYS on their person. No matter how good a dedicated camera device may be, the only camera that really matters is the one you have on your person, the one you can put in your hand at a moment's notice. There is really no competing with a universal device that is always on and always in hand. Phone camera controls are often very inconvenient. Even Lumia's new Nokia Camera software, while better, is still not convenient. It's tedious. But it's the camera I have in hand all the time.